ÿWPCb äLBÛâ¬Ýn*øk4ø=bG¥ƒÝG0ó^¢\O›Ä¦Û·×úö^8\Î{{Šª”r¬zþ—¾ n OérY7Fúp}“R@Q™t˜HWŸà¶¯Ý¥+ Æ{äŽ~•÷E=À¨mvQpIÆÝìd<{3²m40aê*ðO4™[ÇKB¶¨›š`IšMó:î© G‡ù Ì–ÿ²m˜þi}»ž Z綈<ŽV"ìWb _wÀ˜ä°ºLä'0þþiW‚øŸÏŸ]Õö³Mÿ;JùÂÞu*“%ͶQù¸,¯Ä­ýøQ¥7*xcº¹w7;éò6ŸßRV°Þ’¦w󈛸& *o6žL#’ßÒP5‚ –|åˆ?ÞçmP¿v ÆÎÐF1UN® %ü 0å#!çL\;TU.j½w' 4+ ? b N N N N N Z m\ ¨s 0  E( ( N* * ], ^ = = = = = = = = = = = = BI B*f f f f f f f 0C \Ó 03/xÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(½ø$¡¡ÑXXÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ€ ÑÑ8€EƒXXdèXXdè8ÑÓÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÖ€ÿÿÖ˜HP LaserJet 5 (Copy 1)ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0c:\Corel\Suite8\Template\Pleading.wpt¸qÐ/× ÐÖ<Ô6X9`+Courier " '  0 .   V1n_np03|x- ù -ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ žÝ ƒQ¿,ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÔ d ÔÝ  ÝÒ,ÒÓÇÓÔ d ÔÒ(úâÿÿ,€%,€%(ÒÓ  ÓßA€')°âÌ1dEâ0Ì1AßßA€&)°âÌ1qdEñ%âÌ1AßÔ°°°Ô1Ì2Ì3Ì4Ì5Ì6Ì7Ì8Ì9Ì10Ì11Ì12Ì13Ì14Ì15Ì16Ì17Ì18Ì19Ì20Ì21Ì22Ì23Ì24Ì25Ì26Ì27Ì28(å3Q¿$¬¬Ý ƒø!ÝÑX°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ€ ÑÑ8€â:XXdìdì8ÑÓÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÖ€ÿÿÖÝ  ÝÔ d Ôading.astщr3á d&ÿÿ0 d d(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó RÝ ƒ0¯p$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà8 ` àThe€testimony€allowed€in€òòPageóó€is€akin€to€expert€identification€testimony€on€specificÐ ° Ðpsychological€factors€that€affect€the€accuracy€of€eyewitness€identification,€whichÏCalifornia€courts€have€long€since€allowed€when€identification€is€a€key€element€of€theÏPeople's€case€and€it€is€not€substantially€corroborated€by€reliable€independentÏevidence.€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMcDonaldóó€(1984)€37€Cal.3d€351,€377.)€€(ê!2¯p$¤¤Ý ƒø!ÝÑX°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ€ ÑÑ8€â:XXdìdì8ÑÓÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÖ€ÿÿÖÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÝ ƒø!ÝÑX°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ€ ÑÑ8€â:XXdìdÈ8ÑÓÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÖ€ÿÿÖÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÔ‡X³ÔXXXÔÓÓó óÌÌà@ä ä DàSUPERIOR€COURT€OF€CALIFORNIA,€COUNTY€OF€ˆÌÌÌTHE€PEOPLE€OF€THE€STATEà0 À à)à0À€%À€%àCase€No.Иè€%€% ÐOF€CALIFORNIA,à0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%à)Ð` °À€%À€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à0  àÐ( x€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àPlaintiff,à0 À à)à0À€%À€%àMOTION€TO€ADMIT€EXPERT€TESTIMONY€Ðð @€%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à0  àREGARDING€THE€PHENOMENON€OF€COERCED€Ð¸  €%€% Ðà ` àvs.à0 ¸ àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%à)à0À€%À€%àCONFESSIONS€„€PSYCHOLOGICAL€FACTORSЀ Ð €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€THAT€MAY€LEAD€TO€AN€UNRELIABLEÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€CONFESSION.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à0  àDate:ÐØ( €%€% Ðà ` àà ¸ àDefendant.à0 À à)à0À€%À€%àTime:Рð €%€% Ð_________________________)à0  àDept:Ðh¸ €%€% Ðà@DD/Dàò òˆÌÓ Óà@-DàFACTSó óˆÐ  p  Ðà ` àà ¸ àÔÿÔGive€a€brief€description€of€case,€particularly€theÏconfession€at€issue€and€the€pertinent€circumstances€surrounding€it.Ôÿ…Ô€ÏDefendant€wishes€to€present€the€expert€testimony€of€ÔÿÔ(insertÏexpert's€name)ÔÿUÔ,€a€social€psychologist€and€expert€in€the€field€ofÏcoercive€police€interrogation€and€the€phenomenon€of€coerced€orÏfalse€confession.€€ÔÿÔ(Insert€name€of€expert)ÔÿÔ's€curriculum€vitae€isÏattached€to€this€motion.€€Specifically,€Defendant€wishes€ÔÿÔ(insertÏname€of€expert)ÔÿŸÔ€to€testify€to€(1)€the€phenomenon€of€coerced€orÏfalse€confession;€and€(2)€the€general€psychological€factors€thatÏcan€lead€to€a€coerced€or€false€confession,€along€with€a€descriptionÏof€supporting€experiments.€€Defendant€is€not€seeking€to€admitÏexpert€opinion€as€to€the€unreliability€of€the€confession€in€thisÏparticular€case.€ÌÌà@/Dàò òIó óˆÐ à)0%/ ÐÓÓà@| | Dàò òA€FINDING€BY€THE€TRIAL€COURT€THAT€A€CONFESSIONˆÐ À+'1 Ðà@@ @ DàIS€VOLUNTARY€DOES€NOT€PRECLUDE€EXPERT€TESTIMONYˆÌÓÓà@´´!DàOF€THE€TYPE€DESCRIBED€ABOVE.ó óˆÐ  -ð(3 Ðà ` àà ¸ àOnce€a€trial€judge€determines€that€a€confession€of€aÐ €/Ð*5 Ðdefendant€was€voluntary,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€present€toÏthe€jury€all€evidence€on€the€issue€of€voluntariness€of€theÏconfession.Ìà ` àà ¸ àIt€has€long€been€held€in€California€that:ÌÓÓà8 ` àð ðAlthough€the€jury€in€California€is€not€permitted€toÏredetermine€the€issue€of€voluntariness,€it€may€considerÏany€evidence€of€coercion€that€may€be€presented€by€theÏdefendant€in€order€to€determine€the€weight€that€theÏconfession€should€be€given.ðð€€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔJimenezÔ_Ôóó€(1978)€21Ð `  ÐC3d€595,€147€CR€172.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓThis€allows€a€jury€to€give€no€weight€to€a€confession€if€it€finds€itÏhas€been€coerced.€€Ìà ` àà ¸ àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€determined€that€asÏpart€of€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendment€guarantees€of€aÏmeaningful€opportunity€to€present€a€complete€defense,€a€defendantÏhas€a€right€to€present€evidence€about€the€physical€andÏpsychological€environment€in€which€his€or€her€confession€wasÏobtained,€even€though€the€confession€itself€has€been€foundÏvoluntary€and€hence€legally€admissible.€€(òòCraneóó€v.€òòKentuckyóó€(1986)Ð è8 Ð476€U.S.€683.€€Thus,€Defendant€has€a€federal€constitutional€rightÏto€present€the€expert€evidence€in€question.€€As€the€high€courtÏexplained€(476€U.S.€at€p€689):ÌÓÓà ` à"But€the€physical€and€psychological€environment€thatÌà ` àyielded€the€confession€can€also€be€of€substantialÌà ` àrelevance€to€the€ultimate€factual€issue€of€the€defendant'sÌà ` àguilt€or€innocence.€€Confessions,€even€those€that€haveÌà ` àbeen€found€to€be€voluntary,€are€not€conclusive€of€theÌà ` àdefendant's€guilt€or€innocence.€€And,€as€with€any€otherÌà ` àpart€of€the€prosecutor's€case,€a€confession€may€be€shownÌà ` àto€be€'insufficiently€corroborated€or€otherwise.€.€.Ìà ` àunworthy€of€belief.'€€(òòLegoóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔTwomeyÔ_Ôóó,€òòsupraóó,€404€U.S.,€atÐ h)¸$/ Ðà ` à485„486,€92€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.,€at€624„625.)€€Indeed,€stripped€of€theÌà ` àpower€to€describe€to€the€jury€the€circumstances€thatÌà ` àprompted€his€confession,€the€defendant€is€effectivelyÌà ` àdisabled€from€answering€the€one€question€every€rationalÌà ` àjuror€needs€answered:€If€the€defendant€is€innocent,€whyÌà ` àdid€he€previously€admit€his€guilt?€€Accordingly,€regardlessÐ .h)5 Ðà ` àof€whether€the€defendant€marshaled€the€same€evidenceÌà ` àearlier€in€support€of€an€unsuccessful€motion€to€suppress,€Ìà ` àand€entirely€independent€of€any€question€of€voluntariness,Ìà ` àa€defendant's€case€may€stand€or€fall€on€his€ability€toÌà ` àconvince€the€jury€that€the€manner€in€which€the€confessionÌà ` àwas€obtained€casts€doubt€on€its€credibility."Ì€€€€€€Ìà@ÌÌ.Dàò òIIó óˆÐ ( x Ðà@˜ ˜ Dàò òEXPERT€EVIDENCE€ON€THE€PHENOMENON€OF€ˆÐ  h Ðà@˜ ˜ DàFALSE€OR€COERCED€CONFESSIONS€AND€THE€ˆÌà@  DàGENERAL€PSYCHOLOGICAL€FACTORS€WHICH€CAN€LEAD€TO€ˆÌà@$ $ DàUNRELIABLE€CONFESSIONS€HAS€BEEN€PERMITTED€IN€CALIFORNIA€ˆÌà@l l DàAND€OTHER€STATE€AND€FEDERAL€JURISDICTIONS.ˆÌòòó óóóÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àCalifornia€Evidence€Code€Section€801€provides€inÏpertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 ` àð ðOpinion€testimony€by€expert€witnessÐ ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` àIf€a€witness€is€testifying€as€an€expert,€his€testimony€inÏthe€form€of€an€opinion€is€limited€to€such€an€opinion€asÏis:Ð ` (#` (# Ðà8 ` à(a)€Related€to€a€subject€that€is€sufficiently€beyondÏcommon€experience€that€the€opinion€of€an€expert€wouldÏassist€the€trier€of€fact;...€Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àFederal€Rule,€Section€702€embodies€a€similar€requirement,Ïwhich€is€that€expert€testimony€must€assist€the€trier€of€fact€inÏorder€to€be€admissible.€€Social€psychologists€study€interpersonalÏrelationships,€and€how€persuasion,€interpersonal€communication,Ïconformity€and€influence€affect€people€in€given€situations.€€AÏsocial€psychologist€can€explain€how€people€respond€to€certain€kindsÏof€direct€or€implied€persuasion,€intimidation,€lies,€suggestionsÏand€threats.€€This€kind€of€information€is€far€beyond€the€knowledgeÏof€the€average€citizen.€€It€is€within€the€province€understanding€ofÏan€expert€in€the€field€of€social€psychology€such€as€ÔÿÔ(insertÏexpert's€name)ÔÿcÔ.Ìà ` àà ¸ àCalifornia€has€sanctioned€the€admissibility€of€the€sameÏtype€of€expert€testimony€Defendant€is€seeking€to€have€admitted€inÏthis€case.€€In€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòPageóó€(1991)€2€Cal.App.4th€161,€the€trialÐ @.)4 Ðcourt€allowed€the€expert€to€testify€about€the€ð ðfactors€which€mightÏinduce€a€person€to€give€a€false€statement€or€confession€during€anÏinterrogationðð.€€It€allowed€the€expert€to€give€the€jury€anÏexplanation€of€how€a€person€could€be€influenced€to€give€a€falseÏconfession€and€a€description€of€the€relevant€experiments.€€TheÏreviewing€court€approved€that€scope€of€this€type€of€expertÏtestimony,€which€is€what€Defendant€is€seeking€the€admission€ofÏhere,€disallowing€the€expert's€opinion€about€the€reliability€of€theÏconfession€in€that€specific€case.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€183„184.)׃/×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àà ¸ àGeneral€expert€testimony€about€the€phenomenon€of€coercedÏconfessions€such€as€described€in€òòPageóó€has€been€approved€outside€ofÐ P  ÐCalifornia€as€well.€€(See€òòÔ_ÔCallisÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòStateóó€684€N.E.2d€233,€239Ð à0 Ð(Ô_ÔInd.AppÔ_Ô.1997)[trial€court€properly€admitted€an€expert's€testimonyÏregarding€the€phenomenon€of€coerced€confessions€and€properlyÏexcluded€his€opinion€about€the€specific€interrogation€in€thatÏcase].)€€ÔÿÔNote:€The€expert€in€òòÔ_ÔCallisÔ_Ôóó€was€Dr.€Richard€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ô,€so€if€heÐ  p Ðis€your€expert,€note€that€your€case€involves€the€same€expert€whoseÏtestimony€has€already€been€specifically€approved.€Ìà ` àà ¸ àÔÿR#ÔSimilarly,€there€is€federal€court€authority€approvingÏsuch€expert€testimony.€€In€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHallóó€93€F.3d€1337€(7òòthóóÐ `"°& ÐCir.€1997),€the€defendant's€theory€of€defense€was€that€he€sufferedÏfrom€a€personality€disorder€that€made€him€susceptible€to€suggestionÏand€that€he€falsely€confessed€to€win€approval€of€his€interrogators,Ð '`", Ðwhom€he€wanted€to€please.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1341.)òòóó€€The€defendantÐ ° Ðunsuccessfully€sought€the€admission€of€the€expert€testimony€of€aÏsocial€psychologist€concerning€the€existence€of€false€confessionsÏ"and€that€certain€indicia€can€be€identified€to€show€when€they€areÏlikely€to€occur."€€ÔÿÔ(Note:€the€expert€in€this€case€was€Dr.€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ô,€soÏif€you€are€using€him,€highlight€that€fact)ÔÿL'Ô€€The€expert€furtherÏwould€have€described€"what€factors€experts€in€the€field€rely€uponÏto€distinguish€between€reliable€and€unreliable€confessions."€€(òòIdóó.,Ð  ð  Ðat€p.€1341.)€€The€reviewing€court€found€the€exclusion€of€suchÏtestimony€reversible€error,€explaining€that€the€trial€court'sÏruling€ignored€the€value€of€valid€social€science€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1345):Ð P  ÐÓÓà ` à"Even€though€the€jury€may€have€beliefs€about€the€subject,Ìà ` àthe€question€is€whether€those€beliefs€were€correct.Ìà ` àProperly€conducted€social€science€research€often€showsÌà ` àthat€commonly€held€beliefs€are€in€error.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ô'sÌà ` àtestimony,€assuming€its€scientific€validity,€would€haveÌà ` àlet€the€jury€know€that€a€phenomenon€known€as€falseÌà ` àconfessions€exists,€how€to€recognize€it,€and€how€to€decideÌà ` àwhether€it€fit€the€facts€of€the€case€being€tried."ÓÓÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€district€court's€conclusion€therefore€missed€theÏpoint€of€the€proffer.€It€was€precisely€because€juries€areÏunlikely€to€know€that€social€scientists€and€psychologistsÏhave€identified€a€personality€disorder€that€will€causeÏindividuals€to€make€false€confessions€that€the€testimonyÏwould€have€assisted€the€jury€in€making€its€decision.€€ItÏwould€have€been€up€to€the€jury,€of€course,€to€decide€howÏmuch€weight€to€attach€to€Dr.€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ôððs€theory,€and€toÏdecide€whether€they€believed€his€explanation€of€HallððsÏbehavior€or€the€more€commonplace€explanation€that€theÏconfession€was€true.€€See€18€U.S.C.€sec.€3501.€€But€theÏjury€here€may€have€been€deprived€of€critical€informationÏit€should€have€had€in€evaluating€Hallððs€case.ððÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àòòHallóó€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€full€hearingÐ Ø'(#- Ðon€whether€the€proffered€expert€testimony€met€the€requirements€ofÐ h)¸$/ ÐòòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔMerrellÔ_Ô€Dow€Pharmaceuticals,€Incóó.€(1993)€509€U.S.€579,Ð ø*H&1 Ðwhich€requires€a€trial€judge,€when€confronted€with€a€proffer€ofÏexpert€scientific€testimony,€to€determine€"whether€the€expert€isÐ .h)5 Ðproposing€to€testify€to€(1)€scientific€knowledge€that€(2)€willÏassist€the€trier€of€fact€to€understand€or€determine€a€fact€inÏissue."€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€592.)€€Following€a€full€evidentiary€hearing,Ð Ð  Ðthe€district€court€concluded:ÌÓÓà ` à".€.€.Dr.€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ô€is€qualified€as€an€expert€in€the€field€ofÌà ` àcoercive€police€interrogation€techniques€which€may€lead€toÌà ` àfalse€confessions.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€scienceÌà ` àof€social€psychology,€and€specifically€the€field€involvingÌà ` àthe€use€of€coercion€in€interrogations,€is€sufficientlyÌà ` àdeveloped€in€methods€to€constitute€a€reliable€body€ofÌà ` àspecialized€knowledge€under€Rule€702.€.€.€."€€(òòUnited€StatesóóÐ  ð  Ðà ` àòòHallóó,€974€Ô_ÔF.SuppÔ_Ô.1198,€1205€(C.D.€Ill.€1997)Ð h¸  ÐÌÓÓFurther,€the€court€delineated€the€limits€of€permissible€expertÏtestimony€exactly€along€the€lines€Defendant€seeks€here:ÌÓÓà ` à".€.€.€he€can€testify€that€false€confessions€do€exist,Ìà ` àthat€they€are€associated€with€the€use€of€certain€policeÌà ` àinterrogation€techniques,€and€that€certain€of€thoseÌà ` àtechniques€were€used€in€Hall's€interrogation€in€this€case.Ìà ` àDr.€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ô€cannot€explicitly€testify€about€matters€ofÌà ` àcausation,€specifically,€whether€the€interrogationÌà ` àmethods€used€in€this€case€caused€Hall€to€falsely€confess.Ìà ` àWithout€experimental€verification,€such€testimonyÌà ` àwould€be€speculative€and€prejudicial.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔOfsheÔ_Ô€willÌà ` àsimply€provide€the€framework€which€the€jury€can€use€toÌÓÓà ` àarrive€at€its€own€conclusion."€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1205.)Ð è8 Ðà ` àÌà@ìì*Dàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ  X# Ðà ` àà ¸ àBased€on€the€foregoing,€this€court€should€admit€theÏtestimony€of€ÔÿÔ(insert€expert's€name)Ôÿ%9Ô€to€explain€why€and€howÏDefendant€ð ðconfessedðð€in€this€case.€€To€exclude€this€evidence€willÏdeprive€Defendant€of€his€federal€constitutional€right€to€present€aÏcomplete€defense.€Ìà ` àDated:Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRespectfully€submitted,ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð h.¸)5 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€for€DefendantÌÔ#†Xâ:XXX³Ôë#Ô